Legal Opinion

Chao v. Crouse

District Court, S.D. Indiana

Decided November 22, 2004No. 1:03-cv-01585PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BAKER, United States Magistrate Judge.

I.Introduction.

Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao (the “Secretary”) seeks to hold Defendants William Paul Crouse and Carmelo Zanfei, as well as their wholly-owned companies TRG Marketing, LLC and TRG Administration, LLC (collectively, “TRG”), responsible for various alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) arising from their management of the TRG Health Plan (“the plan”). Although Crouse and Zanfei dispute their fiduciary status under…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Mertens v. Hewitt AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Charles W. Leigh and Ervin F. Dusek, Etc., and George Johnson, Intervening v. Clyde William EngleCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
  5. Lopresti v. TerwilligerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Chao v. Duncan (In Re Duncan)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 2005
  2. Perez v. KoreskoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Chao v. Unique Manufacturing Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API